Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

seemed to fit the bill better...

Woah dude, I mean come on, like why doesn't anybody like... wasted!

Then again, i mean seriously like, come on! Because why not though come around like? Seriously man, why can't we just sometimes like play together, dig? Flops forever man!

Anyway...

About the urgent tasks thing, I kinda agree. It's a lot like the Christian fundies who preach armageddon so that enough people hear the "good news" (bad news) before the end. They can't keep up with the Earth's rapidly rising population so their mission is useless. Completion to God's satisfaction my foot. God's up there playing card games with the other gods. Laughing His almighty ass off.

Age old excuse... But at the moment I have no free time except to post :crybaby:
I WILL play though next weekend, cuz that is fall break for me (hence little to no work hopefully). Just have patience please! :D

I may have time @ thursday (the 5th October); on the weekend I will be away @ a privat lan and during the week Supreme Commander stuff keeps me busy mostly

What the heck? What is this about? Why do we have to go on and on about Christians? Please understand, I am NOT trying to sound like a "jesus freak" or whatever u think I am, but truly, to the heart, why do we have to go on and on dissing Christianity? Do people go around dissing the fact that you don't believe in anything (or whatever you DO believe)? All I ask is that you respect what I believe!

...but in all fairness, he's just stating his beliefs just as you are (your quotes attached to your persona on Flops and the name you have chosen as well point to this). Freedom of speech and all! I think all it was is an example: Dr. Lazarus could have just as easily said "a doomsayer of another system of beliefs", yet he said what (maybe I am reading too much into this) he knew best at the time. Remember, this is a forum, and although we must be careful in what we state to avoid angry confrontation, there are sometimes slip-ups as well as "miss-interpretations".  :whistling:

And I think it is safe to say that people do go around dissing what he believes... as we all seem to be making fun of eachother's beliefs as of late. Sorry if I put words in your mouth Doc.  :pinch:
-dom

I agree. In reality auxilio, you are "dissing" my "belief", although strictly I have no belief. I have no more belief in a lack of a God than I do in a lack of the flying spaghetti monster. As a matter of fact, I do not respect others "right to believe"; I disrepect it. Religion is by definition devisive, creating an "us and them" mentality in which the us is better than the them. Additionally, I have yet to come across an Abrahamic religion whose holy book does not contain atrocity and incitement to hatred, amongst (many) other things. Do I disrespect all this? Most certainly I do, in fact I despise it. I dislike all badness, and I will never, ever apologise for that, not to anyone and certainly not to you my friend.

As a matter a fact, surprisingly few people "diss" my "belief", and you are one of the first on these forums to do so. Most religious people spend a disproportionate amount of time defending their own belief system rather than attacking my lack of belief (muslims are a notable exception here). They are hell bent on "proving" that God is all wise and all loving, which is utterly absurd considering the cold facts, and frankly it's dangerous. Relgious people do not have a monopoly on morality and most certainly not on the "truth". If you think you can take the high ground with me you're sadly mistaken.

On the subject of high ground behaviour, I find your opening statement perplexing auxilio. You seem thoroughly confused about "what the heck it's about" but then proceed to answer your own question. I make no apology for going off on a tangent and lambasting Christians. I always take every opportunity to do so actually, because there is a just basis for doing so. If you wish to debate the reasons why I do so, I'm ready with gloves on. Your second option is to develop the standard Christian "persecution complex" and start feeling sorry for yourself because I, through the devil's influence, am persecuting you. Or option three, you can take a long, cold look at the facts, at history and at every facet of science you can digest becfore you even attempt to argue this one with me. When you've done all that, give me a call. And then, if my conversation with you results in your realisation that neither God nor Christ care one iota for you or your suffering (and likely don't exist), then we will all be one step closer to a world where we are free of the stifling divisions and hatred caused by religion, as illustrated today.

I repeat that if you wish to discuss all of the finer points about why your position is absurd, and mine is anything but, then I'm ready. Then you can wipe the egg off your face and become a new man (or woman).

Oops, I definitely put the wrong words in your mouth  :lol:
Just ignore me. Tralallalal :shifty:

Actually your way of putting things is more appealing than mine Dom. My way is designed to send shivers down the recipient's spine, which is not good for upholding relations.  :thumbsup:

Alright, first, I'd like to say that i REALLY am sorry that I opened this can of worms with u, I really am. I didn't mean for that, but let's get past that. Secondly, in saying that you don't believe in anything, u are making the statement that you believe in nothing. Essentially, your belief exists, no matter WHAT you try to do. Thirdly, I will not call you "controlled by the devil and therefore are persecuting me. I think I'll stop numbering my points now. Anyways, next: i do not disagree with your statement in saying, that religion is devisive, anything that is important as that should be the foremost in your mind. What I WILL say, though, is that Christianity does not adhere to religion, we adhere to Christ. If you do not understand what I mean by this, you have no place in this argument.
Just wondering, do u have any sort of background in religion? or anything? just nice to know.

Next, I'd like to wonder...why this argument has nothing to do with belief, or Christianity, but instead, religion in general?

I was not dissing your "belief" (whether that is a belief or not...), perhaps dissing is the wrong word... attacking...perhaps? If I was attacking your belief, then it would have been totally different, anyways. With your statement, you forced me into defense. So, at this point, it is not ME who is being devisive, but it is YOU.
I agree with your statement of my confusion. I am sorry, but that was intended to be more sarcastic than anything. I should not have posted that, next time, I will try better.

unfortunately, I must leave this computer, if you wish, we can take this to MSN or something other than that, if u wish...email me, u can get my email easily. It has been an interesting post...

ya I agree if the other people on this topic want to bash some ones religion all they are going to do is bash back or attack. if you hit some one and they hit you back you cant get mad at them you started this all by hitting them or in this case attacking their religion.

Thanks for your honest and thoughtful response auxilio, makes a change from what I usually get, and as you can probably imagine, many do not take well to my abrasive style. However I consider it necessary.

I'm sure you think religion is not devisive, but the real facts show that the opposite is correct. You say that it's non-devisive because really, we should keep what's most important to the forefront, which you intimate as being not a bad thing. I strongly disagree. Many wars have been fought because the combatants stubbornly held onto beliefs that they held to be important. The importance of a belief is subjective, and it is this subjectivity that leads to irreconcilable division. Objectivity leads to peace. So in effect you've proved my point here.

You say Christianity does not adhere to religion. Well, very nice but that depend on how you define religion, and you've provided no definition. However, by most accepted definitions Christianity is a religion, and many denominations fit the definition of a cult down to the finest details. So much depends on definitions. What is most important to me is not words, but meaning. The meaning I emphasised  is division. And following Christ will do that nicely. Did he not say that his followers should be no part of the world? That if we love our family more than him we are not worthy of him? I've seen families torn apart because of stubborn adherence to these, and many other, scriptures.

I guess I've just answered your other question. I most certainly do (did?) have a religious background. I was part of a fundamentalist, literalist Christian religion that made careful interpretation of the scriptures. I made study of doctrine a massive part of my life, all the while ignoring intuitive doubts as well as some specific ones. Finally, I decided to read the bible in detail, and that was more than enough to convince me it was worthless and perhaps even dangerous. I then realised that I knew the bible better than most Christians. Sure enough, it is no coincidence that many atheists/agnostics know the bible better than religious people do.

I agree that I uphold the division by assaulting religion, but think about that. "The division". The division was already there. I'd consider that before you accuse me of abandoning my humanist values. If you take a careful look at history, the division was put there by stubborn religious people, and it is this I fight against. If Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc etc want to stand on the picket lines forming little pockets of human society then I'm hardly going to join any of their little groups. Therefore, the division remains. I'll stay right here until the whole planet Earth is a unified human family. And, despite the claims of my former religion, the way to create this ideal situation is not to massacre 99.9% of the human race.

As a matter of fact, I like to force people into defence because it demonstrates to all how weak their arguments are. There is nothing you can say that I cannot refute. I was a Christian for twenty years and I know the ins and outs of many other religions too. The reason you will never convince me to "see the light" is not because I have a "wicked heart" or any other Christian ideas, neither is it because I am particularly clever; it is because I am armed with the real truth. The real truth is incomplete, and much less cosy than the opium of religion, but it is far more satisfactory. If you'd like my e-mail address or anything else, send me a pm and I'll be happy to discuss anything you'd like.
Posted on: October 11, 2007, 11:54:57 pm

---

Ooh Meredith, genius!! How long did it take you to think of that? I'll have to watch out for you in the future Einstein.

Here's my message to all religiously inclined members: feel free to "hit me back". I'll hit back even harder. Every time.  :thumbsup:

well thanks I guess :blush:

You're quite welcome  B)

short reply, sry, gotta have supper.

I am not trying to make u see the light, if I was, I would have been going about this TOTALLY differently. As for devisive, u misunderstand, I do not disagree with you, those facts are unresputable.

Hmmm, I've been following this... and now I don't understand where it went. :ermm:
Could you explain further, Aux (when you are not eating of course)?

I'm also Christian and believe in the forgiveness of my sins by the death at the cross and revival after 3 days of God himself "Jesus Christ" so I can be in my father again and he in me through the Holy Spirit. It's about love, the biggest thing of all.  Living like He showed us is the goal of my life.
And whatever others say and trying to proof against, reality and living with a real existing being shows me that He is still there and cares about me and also about the world. You will never experience that if you don't want it. It's your free will that is untouchable, a rule God gave himself and he's bound to that.
For me the cause of evil that exists is also the result of the free will of each of us to do whatever we want and stands in our power, even believing there is no god, or creating a nuclear bomb and use it.
But through that others are not less worth than me, I'm exactly the same as you, my brothers and sisters which have broken with God out of free will.
And also the thing with omnipotence. God is not omnipotent in the way you understand omnipotence. For example: He can't hate and he can't sin and he also cannot create a stone that he is not able to lift.
He would never actually force you to believe him and so do I.
 
This is the only thing I'll say. You can take it or leave it.

Hi Jan, been a while, have you been away somewhere?

I understand where you are coming from as I was a Christian for a long time. It's easy to view the veneer of religion as representative of love, and it's true that many religious people are kind and caring, but it is my suggestion that they are like this in spite of their beliefs not as a result of them. We all have the ability to construct a moral system and I know many who have done who are entirely atheist. In fact, dare I say that the most moral, upstanding people I know are non-religious?

Jan I encourage you to read the bible because it is evident that you have not done so. Allow me to explain how I can tell this.

The bible is not a picture of love. It contains many statements about God's love and mercy but these ideas are not backed up by any actions contained in the scriptures. The God of the Old Testament is vengeful and violent, and on many occasions ordered the slaughter of entire nations, down to babes in arms and even animals. He ordered the slicing to bits of over 40 children simply because they mocked a prophet's baldness, he took pleasure in the sacrifice of living things, he ordained rape and pillage, and he is even unashamedly described as a God of war in certain places. You can find all of these things in the bible, they are not hidden and they plain to see. The old testament also contains utterly vulgar descriptions of ritualistic worship and tradition amongst the israelites, often related to sexual matters.

If you are thinking, "but Christianity is based on the New Testament", consider that Jesus himself actually said that it is impossible to invalidate anything in the mosaic law or "the scriptures" (the Old Testament), and he mentioned clearly that we are to follow them if we are to gain everlasting life.

On the other hand, the New Testament is hardly the very picture of loving care that you intimated in your post. As I clearly pointed out in my last post here, following Christ is divisive by definition, and requires an unloving attitude towards non-believers and even family members. I've seen families and lives destroyed because of the so called love of Christ. The poor attitude of Christ is evident in his sayings. And as for his supposed wisdom, he said nothing ingenious or that was not obvious. The one thing that everybody quotes (the golden rule) was exceedingly obvious common sense, and had been mentioned by spiritual men centuries earlier anyway.

You say evil exists due to free will. This is a very poor, very weak argument, and I've heard it a thousand times before. The whole idea depends on Adam and Eve being only capable of two choices, good and evil. This is a gross oversimpification and a typical logical fallacy. If God is so wise and loving, why could he not give them 100 good choices to make? They would still have had free will, and a huge amount of suffering would have been avoided. Is the creator of the universe so unimaginative that the only way he can prove his sovereignty is to allow heinous suffering? What is more, why does it immediately follow that all of their descendents should inherit sin and death? We could go on for hours poking holes in the famed "issue of universal sovereignty".

Either way God seems to be more concerned with his own sovereignty and worship than with anybody else's wellbeing or happiness. Here on Earth we have words for that kind of thinking, such as narccisistic personality disorder. The wise, loving God also allows the devil to unleash trouble upon the Earth to satisfy this universal chess game, while we suffer. We must be worth very little to God. Love? I think not.

You say God can't hate and he can't sin but to me all these things are evident. When you say that you are simply regurgitating what others have already told you. Have you really (really) thought about it? Do we truly live in a universe designed by a loving God? Is his holy book good (it is if you ignore 90% of it, maybe just by sticking to Proverbs).

The truth is the physical universe itself does not bear the hallmarks of creation by a loving God such as the one you describe. Can you explain to me where parasites, predators and prey come from? From what Edenic lifeforms did they adapt, and how did this happen on a scale of time orders of magnitude smaller than evolution? Do you really (really) believe that a lion was designed to eat grass (see Isaiah)? Why is a gazelle "designed" for speedy escape from e.g. cheetahs (i.e. from whom where they running before the fall from grace?). From what Edenic forms were bacteriophage viruses adapted? Parasitic nematodes? Liver flukes? Funnel web spiders? Why is most of the universe hostile to life, but cosily accomodates sun-destroying gravity phemomena such as black holes? Why do living things have suboptimal features (such as vestigal anatomy, a breathing/eating choking risk and a gradually swelling gland around a squashable tube)?

You cannot possibly read any of this without conceding that a drastic revision in your beliefs is necessary. You say much , but explain nothing. Everything you say is merely sentimental and emotional, and is not backed up by anything. I think it's crystal clear that you've hardly read the bible, and you've not read any of my previous posts. If you had read my posts, you would not be so quick to defend the indefensible. You say to "take it or leave it". This is another example of Christians presenting the world with oversimplified choices. In fact, there are other choices. I've not taken it (I never will), and I've not left it either, I've picked it apart, and it's easily done simply by exercising a little thinking ability. We should not believe something just because it sounds nice and has lots of gooey and emotional love words associated with it. We should believe something because it represents the truth (reality), even if that truth is uncomfortable or incomplete. I challenge you, Jan, to provide a solid, watertight justification for why you believe in what you do, instead of making declarations such as "Christ died for me out of his love for me". If you make a statement, back it up. Show me why it represents truth, and find hard facts which corroborate your ideas.
Posted on: November 03, 2007, 02:57:12 pm

---

Almost forgot, I'd like to address this point about God not being truly Omnipotent. That's an interesting idea and I've never heard a Christian say that. I should point out that Jesus said on one occasion that with God nothing is impossible, more evidence that you simply have not read the bible.

There are many other scriptures which espouse God's omnipotence (and onmiscience, Psalms in particular), so it is perfectly understandable that the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic religions represent God as all knowing and all powerful. Of course, that would be a serious logical error, as if God can create a rock he cannot lift, he is not omnipotent, but on the other hand if he cannot create a rock he cannot lift, he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence seems to be universally forbidden by the laws of logic.

Of course if you were correct about God being a limited, finite being, it is unscriptural, but I also have to ask, why then do you worship him? What value does it have? And above all, it changes nothing about the nature of the crimes commited in the bible by God and in the name of God, so the issue becomes mute anyway.

If I may say so it almost seems as if Jan is describing this particular god as just a more "enlightened" and powerful human. The deity he describes seems quite naive, like a child perhaps, with powers that he/she/it doesn't understand.
...Because there is very little I can add to Doc's statement I will just state that if this god loved humans so much, why are we not even the masters of our own planet? Doesn't the bible state that "we" shall have power over all the beasts and plants of this world? There are about 1 million described species of insects, and perhaps anywhere from 8-20 million more. As you may have heard there are 450,000 species of beetles alone... the phrase "If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles" comes to mind" :shifty:
If these insects were to go extinct, so would we. Life would in effect be reduced to a state similar to a ~2 billion year old earth (only a few early "plants" as "higher organisms")

Just a few things I want to say,
God IS omnipotent, it doesn't possibly make sense any other way, does it? As you, yourself pointed out in...i can't remember where...or did u even? God MUST be omnipotent, it doesn't work if he isn't.
Also, it is COMPLETELY impossible for US to understand God. He created the universe, He is outside our limitations and our understanding. Our human brains cannot even UNDERSTAND who EXACTLY He is, what is doing, and why.
Also, the Old Testiment was NOT during what we call the dispensation of grace. When people disobeyed the laws that God GAVE them to live correctly, the people were punished. If people were not punished, how could God truly be God? People would continue on their way, doing the evil things that specifically told them NOT to do! You should understand this, since you've obviously analyzed the Bible.
Jesus came in the 'New Testament era' to give us grace, so, while we are still able to refer to the Old Testament for rules and guidelines, (seeing as they ARE good rules to follow, take the ten commandments for example) we are forgiven for what we've done, we do not require to slaughter animals to be without sin. christ came to save us, before there was no saving being done. We fell from holiness and purity when we sinned in the garden of Eden, it was OUR choice that caused our separation from God. God didn't want us to, yet He let us. Where would His love for us be if He MADE us be His servants? We would be mindless automatons. About yur 100 good choices, they STILL would have had to choose between the right and wrong choices. That choice they made was the first one they made and they STILL DID IT WRONG! We are humans, inherantly sinful.
Along the strand of the Bible, you say you've analyzed the Bible, right? (To sum it up.) Would the Bible not require MORE than just analyzation? It requires the spirit behind the Bible to become aparant. Have you read the Bible with the understanding that it can mean more than just what the words look like and what they EXACTLY say?
Oh and about your talking about faith healing, my brother's eardrum was more than 50% degenerated. There was nothing left of it, he was going to be DEAF out of one ear for the REST OF HIS LIFE. Around a little bit more than a week later, the ENTIRE eardrum was regenerated. How can this be? Did the doctors do it? NO! Was it some random probability of the universe? No, the body simply can not regenerate the ear drum that fast, let alone regenerate it to full capacity at all! We believed that he would be healed and HE WAS! Also, my pastor had a broken leg, with a cast on it. He believed in his heart that he would be healed, cut the cast off and it was. It didn't sit for months on end, he removed the cast and the broken bone was healed. This is the healing power of God.
One very last point that I would like to make. I know you don't classify yourself as an aetheist, but you obviously don't believe in God, right? So then, why do you take SO much time out of your life to attempt to convince others that God doesn't exist? I mean, if there is no God, what harm does it do to follow the absence of him? why do u devote SO much of your time and logic to convince others that there is no God? I'll tell you: it's because you're afraid. You won't believe that there is a God who loves you, who wants to be close to you, and wishes for your heart. You can't stand to believe the fact that without him, you are going to a fiery end in hell for the rest of eternity. It's because you're in denial.

god this thread has become way of hand, can a moderator either split it or close it...

Just a note to the moderators:

I really am sorry for this to get out of hand. I am used to people just kind of saying, "sorry." once I ask for  them to respect what I believe. I just meant to defend my belief for a moment, then thought it would be over. I don't care if the thread is closed, or moved, or whatever you want to do with it. Just please know that I did NOT attempt to create mayhem on your server. If you really want me to, I'll leave the forums. I joined the forums to become an active part of the community, I don't want to leave, but I will if you ask me to. Thank you for reading this.

Auxilio Ab Alto.

Wow.  Ten bucks to whomever remembers the original topic.   :lol:

Side note: Y'all need to lighten up.  Try spamming the hoedown for a week and see if it helps things.

Hehe, it was about when the mod was going to be released, I think...not totally sure... but that's what I think, any other takers?

Going once, going twice...

It looks like the man in the Galaxy-class starship has it!

(http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4952/50578818gk2.th.jpg)

/takeabow
Thank you, thank you, I'd like to thank... Dr Lazarous for bringing this up! (Or was it me...?)

I don't think anybody wants you to leave the forums Auxilio, just enjoy the (more-or-less) good natured debate we are having  :D
There has been no name calling as of yet, no swearing, and no threats, so I take it we are still in the clear, no?
That being said... do you mind if I take issue with this point: "Also, it is COMPLETELY impossible for US to understand God. He created the universe, He is outside our limitations and our understanding. Our human brains cannot even UNDERSTAND who EXACTLY He is, what is doing, and why."
If this is true, then what are the various religious texts for... why is religion around? Isn't it for interpreting a specific deity's will? Aren't we trying to live as he/she/it would have us live? This IS interpreting "God" is it not? If we could not understand this, then how could we possible understand that this god "created the universe" being that it is out of "limitations and our understanding". ... and then that brings up the point: if we do not "understand who Exactly He is, what is doing, and why" then how can we possibly follow a religion. Aren't these the things religion is based on? We are the chosen people... god is a he... this god loves us... All these things require one to understand the deity's will and existence right? Now... back to homework, cheers  :thumbsup:

Actually, omnipotence makes no sense, as illustrated by the logical paradox of the unliftable rock.


Learn to read posts more carefully. Nobody claimed that, even Jan didn't try to claim that.


Yes, if he is omnipotent, but as we've seen that's absurd. You've yet to prove that he even exists, never mind that he's all-wise and all-loving.


Go back and read all my stuff about parasites, predators, prey and vestgial features and then try to claim that again. Do you read previous posts?


Adam and Eve's descendents were punished for crimes they did not commit. It was God that created the cold rule that sons are punished for the sins of the father. And does not the whole fruit thing strike you as proportionaltely mismatched with the judgement? HAve you actually thought about all this? WHy did God even create humans with the ability to do wrong?


The "spirit" of the bible (however you define that, which you have not) seems to be one of violence and hatred, not to mention division and nationalism. This idea that we "read beyond the words" is entirely subjective, not objective, and has caused wars. Besides, how am I supposed to figure out verses about two bears ripping apart 40 kids? When God ordered rape and pillage, what "spirit" does that reflect?


Actually, yes! Have you ever heard of the normal (gaussian) distribution? If you do not understand basic probability laws and statsistics then it's no wonder you think miracles can happen. Go learn the shape of bell shaped curves and then ask yourself whether it is possible for very very unlikely events to occur. I think you'll be surprised. A little education goes a long way.


That's a big presumption. I can't possibly disprove God because you can't disprove things that can't be subjected to scientific testing.


I promote reason. Religious people assume God exists and then search for evidence to support that idea. Scientists look at the evidence and see what conclusions can be drawn. Right now it doesn't look like the Abrahamic God is even there, let alone cares. Granted, the universe requires explanation, but yours is unsatisfactory. It's better to believe nothing than believe what is wrong. It is my personal responsibilty to help others to think objectively.


You're sadly, sadly mistaken friend. Believe me, I'd love to believe there's a loving God up there. I actually did for 20 years. I've been there, worn the t-shirt. In fact, I yearn for such a closeness with God (this may surprise you). However, I will not deny the facts or reality. On the other hand, as uncomfortable as this reality is, it's better than yours of a possible firey hell (what a loving God you worship). Would you punish a child by putting his hand in a fire? Why does your God do that? Why would he do it to me simply for exercising my (God-given?) reasoning ability? Just like your colleagues, you spout of emotional language and stock answers without having ever thought them through. It's entirely possible that this life is not all there is, but yours is not the answer, and considering the horrific content of the scriptures, that's a relief. Next time, read my posts before you answer. It's very evident that you did not, as I address many of these points (e.g. suffering, fall from grace) in prior posts.
Posted on: November 03, 2007, 09:06:51 pm

---

A note to our pious religious friends: if you make a statement, back it up with some sort of explanation. Not one, zero, zipp of you have ever done that, ever. You say so many things about God's love and how we "were" created or about how I "am" going to hell, but you never ever explain how you know these things to be true. You just "know" they are, without evidence. I'm sure this gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but if you read the bible, or study real science, you will find that every one of these prior assumptions is called into question (most of them once you can see the lack of inspiration evident in the bible).

So, do some research. Actually spend some time learning to think, and then come back here and actually try to prove some of your baseless statements.

Not really interested in sticking my head out in this one, but Doc, I feel I must point out that when you mention 'fiery hell'...


...that you're appealing to a stereotype that really doesn't reflect the viewpoint of a large amount of Christians, many who believe that 'hell' simply represents seperation from god, an 'eternity of hopelessness', if you will.

Correct me if I am wrong Red, but isn't the "eternity of hopelessness" a non-scriptural hell?

Yes you're right Red, in fact my old religion didn't believe in a firey hell. They simply believed in an armageddon execution of bone-chilling horror. Needless to say I don't have a lot of respect for such belief systems. The eternity of hopelessness is interesting but again, how do people determine how those scriptures should be interpreted? Again, it's entirely subjective. With a fertile imagination, you can squueze any interpretation or prophecy out of the bible you like.

once again, I'm sorry, I seem to be saying that alot now. I was kinda hard pressed for time, I had to do chores and stuff like that. What I said was hasty and should have been better worded, some of it probably didn't even need to be said. I do apologize though, for telling u that you're going to hell. It didn't really need to be said and was unneccessary for the argument.

You're a big person for apologising about that one thing, makes me feel like saying sorry myself. Although, I have strong resistance about apologising for what I see as simple logic and thought, a non-personal thing. And I am very sure that I am right, nothing I've said can be (or has been) refuted. But I am sorry for my abrasive style. It keeps popping its ugly head.

Indeed.  Which is why your characterization is undoubtedly a misrepresentation, and resembles a straw man in uncanny form.

Red, I don't (ever) make straw man arguments. That would only be a straw man if there were some better alternative which I have unfortunately misrepresented. Your eternity of hopelessness thing is just something that someone made up. An honest look at the bible shows that even amongst the myriad of subjective interpretations, not one is benevolent. I'm afraid it's you that's making a straw man out of the (rather offensive) scriptures which describe hell.

Red, I know all the classic logical fallacies including the straw man. I studied them until I was blue in the face and I'm very careful to avoid them. That's not to say I'm incapable of accidentally doing it, but that did not happen here. Very clever and nice try, but no.
Posted on: November 03, 2007, 10:22:14 pm

---

Also, for once will some of you religious guys dish out some scriptures or something. You carefully avoid specific quotes because, like me, you know what their nature is. So, find some of the bible's classic hell scriptures and show me how and why you decided it doesn't say what it says. Note the how and the why. Very important.

Well, allow me to better elaborate, then.  It's not that you eclipse a viewpoint in better standing, but it is that you used a single viewpoint among many to make a point that the God in question is unloving.  However, you yourself point out that anyone can really make out whatever they want regarding hell, so how can you direct an argument at a diety based on something like that?
 

Ah, but if I thought you had somehow forgotten what a straw man was (essentially setting an opposing viewpoint up to take a fall), then why did I mention it by name intead of describing it?

Yes, I used that particular issue to show how (the Christian) God is unloving, but the point is that no matter what way you look at it even figurative, non-literal interpretations do not demonstrate God's love in any way, shape or form. You've yet to even explain why you do not interpret the verses literally, but that's a separate issue.


Well, yes and no. These particular scriptures seem pretty unambiguous actually, so they would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. However, let's examine two possibilities:

Situation A: We cannot make out what we want from the hell scriptures.

Well then, God's lovely firey hell exists because you can only take the scriptures one way, and they mention fire and sulfur and other things that can burn you so we'll go with that.

Situation B: We actually can make what we want of the scriptures.

Then what value does the bible have? If we can make such a broad spectrum of wildly different interpretations from the scriptures, then its author is very poor, and it is badly written and unclear. We never claim that say a Physical Chemistry textbook is inspired of God, and we can expect to find little errors and typos. However, generally speaking the information is clearly written and unambiguous, such that it is even cited by experts. Can you say the same for the bible? Even this is an argument against any diety having written it.

It's easy to dismiss the Christian God Red, you must be able to see that by now. It's not so easy to disprove the existence of "higher beings", but even then you can make some conclusions based on our our world and our life. Have a look at my sig for more on that.

I simply wish for you to decide whether you are crusading against the nature of God or those who intemperate it.

I'm "crusading" against those people who never exercise their thinking ability.

If there is a God up there, we can say very little about his nature, so there is nothing to assault. We can conclude certain things though, based on a review of the bible and a study of our world, and of nature. If there is anybody up there at all, they are nothing like the creationist God described by the world's major religions. This should be a relief, not bad news.

It is not right to believe in, say, Christian creationism just because we have no other real explanations of origins. Those people will put forth clearly erroneous reasons why evolution is wrong, for example by claiming that order cannot come from disorder, or that we evolved from chimps. Have you ever heard of "getting the right answer for the wrong reason"? If we were created, it was not by via the discrete creationist way. This is merely one example of intellectual stagnation that seems to be evident in people across the world.

I would never crusade against people who use sound reasoning, or against a truly loving God. I really hope he's up there but it's unlikely, unless he's non-personal, non-loving, not omnipotent, not omniscient, absent, some of the above, or all of the above. So it's apparent that, in the small chance that a God is up there who even remotely resembles your idealistic description, you are busily defending a deity whose characteristics you are not even aware of.

This IS going to sound terrible and is a terrible representation of the Christian people here, but I truly do not know enough of the Bible at this point. I would like to thank you for pointing this out to me, but this does NOT mean that I am agreeing with any of your points. I have now realized how completely uneducated I am in the Bible, but this does NOT mean that I am convinced, any way that you are right and there is no God.
One other thing I've realized is that I'm TERRIBLE at arguing...lol. I just kinda suck at it. I say kind of what's on my mind, but I generally don't have much to back it up with. I hope this doesn't totally wreck what we've been debating, but it does explain why I haven't 'thrown' scriptures at you. Also, on another kind of side track, if u do believe that the scriptures are totally false, why would giving u scriptures help in any way shape or form, since it would only seem like a book that some random person wrote to you and any others reading this?

It would seem like just a random book you are right. I guess at least it would show me that your beliefs are based on something, even if that foundation is questionable.

It might interest you to know that I left religion after reading the bible. That's how it happened. Many agnostics became that way because they read the bible in detail. It's a strange irony that they know the bible better than many Christians do, and it's not a coincidence either.

So the simple fact is, I do not need to "deconvert" you, you can do that yourself. Simply read the bible. I think everybody should.

ok, i would like to know of some instances that you speak about on how the Bible contradicts itself, I find it hard to argue when there's nothing that I know of at the moment to look at. How bout we start there?
*Edit, whoops just realized...
K, I just realized, you've been giving me examples of contradictions, I was wondering more on the side of, like exact bible verses, or something like that, other than "God is not benevolent/manevolant"...whichever one is which. Like, are there verses u know of that actually contradict themselves, or were u meaning something else when u said that?

It's good to know I have nothing to fear. :P

p.s. it looks like someone had fun with the topic title.  Jan is the likely culprit.  :ph34r:

I don't recall talking about contradiction per se, but there are examples, such as whether or not we are saved by faith or by works, whether we are punished for the sins of others, and many numerical contradictions.

(Romans 3:28, James 2:17)
(Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20)
(1 Kings 5:16, 2 Chronicles 2:18)

As for qualifying God's malevolence, a simple read will do. Even if the bible didn't contradict itself, the God it describes is still unworthy of our worship.

i kinda just realized that I have a 8-10 page essay due in like, 2 days and I really need to work on that instead, ok? I realize this looks bad, but i don't have time for this anymore 2day. It's been...interesting. Until later.

Fleetops is for fun. Please leave religion out of here.
Not everyone is a Christian, nor does everyone find much difference in believing in God, or believing that he does not exist. Science itself is still adapting, and at each new discovery of Gas planets that can float on our oceans scientists find that the universe holds more wonders of which simple human-perception-governed science cares to take cognizance. One can "believe" that God exists or one can "believe" that God does not - in both cases people only choose a point of view to suit their own psychological/carnal needs. Neither can conclusively disprove the other.
Maybe when we have broken through the confines of our football shaped finite universe, and seen all that is out there, can we continue with the Hubris of this thread.
Otherwise it is just simple, and idle banter on a topic none of us here actually have the knowledge or acumen to fruitfully discuss.

Fleetops is for gaming. Please let's stick to gaming and enjoying here. For those interested in such intricate and controversial topics - visit Yahoo and chat there.

Now if we were to ask if we find the Borg ideals of oneness and lack of disunity to be admirable, or simply a deprivation of the basic uniqueness to which each living being is entitled, then hey, love to discuss that "morality" here.  :borg:

You know one thing I have knotted is it relay hard to refer to some thing in a naive/positive way with out using morality such as "Good" "Bad" its posable but not easy. My self I am trying to reform the way I speak with out using t words that were made to talk about religion.

The problem with "Good" and Bad" is that they have such a broad meaning and are constantly miss under stood. Like if you tell a child don't do that its "bad" to do ____ they can easily and most of the time think they are talking about them as have bean bad. and to a child to be bad is the same as evil. evan to adult the world bad/good can be easily misunderstood.

___

About leaving religion out of here why? are people so sisative about belief that they cant even talk about it??

People are not frosted to participate in a thread and if the tread fallows the forum rules I don't see a problem.

That's why we have a small talk section. There's one in most forums, you should know that. "Anything goes", so on and so forth.


Yet another "statement" without backup. Who said this? I've never met a person for whom this issue is irrelevant. Here's my "statement": Whether or not you believe in a God (particularly the Abrahamic God) has profound implications. Why? Because if you conceded that he exists then you have to find out his will. This affects your choice of career, whether or not you have a family, etc. I wish people would stop making baseless statements.


I couldn't agree more. This actually demonstrates the sheer arrogance of the religious people in believing they've got it all figured out. Your sentence summarizes everything I've been trying to say for the past several months. I certainly don't have the answers. However, I'm trying to purge all of this simplistic, absurd nonesense and non-thinking that occurs as a result of siding with a world religion. What is more, I won't allow anyone to try to stop me.


I take exception to this, and frankly I find it insulting. My "carnal" and psychological needs tell me there is a God, and I want to be close to him. However, unlike our happy-go-lucky friends here on the thread, I am not fooled by my own sentiment. When I examine nature, with it's visious polar bears, creepy parasites and deadly diseases, I know that God didn't create all that, and that the Genesis account is absurd, and requires much faster evolution than any scientists would try to claim. When I read the bible, and I read about slaughter and nationalism as well as rape and other vulgarities, I feel disgust. When I read it's contradictions, duplications and mistakes, my intellectual faculties tell me that it's not inspired on God. So please do not tell me that I decided the Judeo-Christian God isn't there in order to satisfy a carnal need. It is that need I fight against, using reason. And reason wins everytime.


Once again I agree unreservedly with your statement about our limited knowledge, and I think it's quite exciting actually. I think the whole planet should know that they don't need to believe in the horrors described in the bible, because reality is likely richer and more beautiful than they could ever imagine. The only "Hubris" in this thread comes frim those who declare that they're at one with a God that they do not even understand, and that may not even be personal or personable. Moreover, to take that theme further, they personify their deity because they are only capable of thinking in human terms. I view it as my life-long responsibility to get these people to expand their minds to other possibilities.


Here's an example of idle banter: "Jesus died on the cross for me, I'm one with him, I'm sorry you don't see that, you can take it or leave it".

Such sentences result in a fruitless dicsussion because not only is there no evidence to support the statement, but the person has also insulted the "non-believer" by implying that the reason he can't see his point of view is because he's wicked or lacks "holy-spirit". The truth is that such an arguer demonstrates clearly that he doesn't have God's wisdom at all, and that he has about as much holy spirit as a bowl of cornflakes.

If you carefully read my posts you will see that they are not idle banter, and I challenge you prove your assertions. In fact I challenge everyone to back up what they say instead of just saying stuff in declarative form. Why do I keep asking that? Why is it that everyone states something in opinionated from, such as "it is like this" or "it is like that" without bothering to explain why?

So serpicus, I agree with certain things you have said, but you won't drive me away from here. I'd love to "leave religion out of here", the very word religion to me is offensive because of what it represents (division amongst many other things). However I feel compelled to speak out against the folly of simplistic superstitious nonesense, and I'll do so until someone comes up with a golden argument to prove me wrong. So far, nobody has even come close. My opponents don't even try to tackle the naturalistic, cosmological, scientific and logical arguments, because they know that to do so is futile. So all they do is spout off more emotional garbage.

42

That's genius that is. I always knew you were a dark horse Smoerebroed.

I should point out that the above answer is, in fact, the best anyone's come up with so far. Quite sad really.

Well if some ones grow up in a room with no doers or windows haw do they know that they are in a room?

What I mean reality is a point of view that most people do not share the problem is that people don't see it as a point of view they see it as fact.

to further illustrate my point let me ask you what color it this forum? the answer may surprise you.

Urrrm, purply-blue with a black strip down the centre?  :ermm:

We Apologize For The Inconveniencec

Its Green and orange our eyes convert the colors in to blue and red. Every thing is not as it seems every time we think we know a truth is disproved by some new truth. So for us to say three no god is a little silly if we cant prove it.

But it very in plausible that a creator with supper human powers control the fate of every thing is very very very unlikely.

I agree, our perceptions probably fool us more than we realise.

Science itself restricts itself to what's testable. The key to the scientific method is to try to falsify your own claims. Since  a God can't (yet) be subjected to this method, it's not possible to disprove that he's there.

Unfortunately the religious folk take this as being a 50:50 chance of God being there, when really the chance of the vengeful all powerful biblical God being there is minimal. Some atheists/agnostics have turned this into a joke by acting in the same way, and creating the Pastafarian religion on that basis (they worship His Sauciness the Flying Spaghetti Monster). You can't prove that their God is not there, so, he must be there, right?  :ermm:

Bertrand Russell was making the same point when he made up his microscopic teapot orbiting mars scenario. According to the religious method, that must be there too. Trouble is it's very unlikely. Nobody has (yet) found any evidence!

As a good scientist, you never, EVER (pardon my capitals) assume somthing exists and then search for evidence to back it up. Truly intelligent reasoning operates in the opposite direction, and this protects us from believing something is there just because we want it to be there. That's why scientists falsify rather than the opposite. Unless something is completely untestable, in which case the issue is irrelevant. There's a big debate going on in String Theory about this at the moment.

um the FSM was a humoristic approach by a US citizen (a scientist, if I'm correct) to criticize the fact that some states in the US allow teaching of creationism @ school.

Yup, so really he's making the same point I described. It more or less goes like this: Creaionists want opposing viewpoints to be aired. Their viewpoint was reached via the reverse-scientific method I mentioned, so this guy simply did the same thing. Why doesn't his Flying Spaghetti Monster deserve equal teaching time? After all, we should teach "opposing views" (I actually thoroughly disagree with this, I believe that only scientific views should be given teaching time. If anyone wants to debate why creationism is unscientific, I can create another thread. Or just watch the last episode of DS9 season 1 for a similar situation and you'll see how absurd it is).

I saw a comic once where a priest in a Sunday Service started to teach about evolution in his church because "opposing viewpoints should be taught". Funny, but it makes a serious point.

what's the current status of the string theory?

Until (very) recently, String Theory was a highly mathematical device for unifying the four fundamental forces of Physics, but its predictions could not be tested due to the enormous energies that would be required in particle accelerators. Right now there are one or two quite vague, but real predictions that might be testable in the Large Hadron Collider in spring 2008 when it comes online. Many experimental physicists are still highly sceptical though. To them, we still have no solid predictions from the theory, so in that case it's more of a philosophy than a science, so they think it's basically meaningless to discuss String Theory. Not wrong, just meaningless. This links in with arguments about deities.

The sort of "predictions" that might be testable in the LHC are for example supersymmetic particles, which are heavier counterparts of typical everyday particles such as electrons and neutrinos. If they are found, that would suggest that String Theory might be correct, but it would hardly be a smoking gun, as there are other theories in particle physics that also predict supersymmetry. It seems to me that experiment is still the best way to proceed: we look at the data and see what we can conclude, so we'll have to wait until spring. We can't (and shouldn't) turn centuries of tried and tested scientific methodology on its head. Although I must admit, String Theory has a certain appeal to it, and it is mathematically beautiful. Never trust your emotions though  ^-^ .

very well since we are adamant on talking about this.

First of all, let's be clear that christianity today is not the word of Christ. It is the consolidation of the works of saul - vis a vis Paul. Ironically Paul never met Christ in his life.
Nonetheless, Gentile Europe accepted Christianity primarily due to the proselytization of Paul.

A very interesting aspect aspect of Paul's proselytization is his stance towards Gentile Christianity as opposed to Judaic law. In his discussion with the true apostles of Christ (the ones who actually met and subsequently denied Christ) a debate arises as to the abandonment of Judaic law for Gentile customs and the over-emphasis on Christ. It was argued by the apostles that Chrsit was the Moshiach that was sent to the Jewish community as THEIR saviour. Paul did not disagree with this, but added that the Gentile world would certainly benefit from knowing of Christ. In effect in this short dialog it was historically recognized that Christ came for the Jews and not for gentiles, but the Gentile populace of the roman empire would certainly benefit from Christ's message.
It is this idea that was actively marketed as "through Christ shall you attain salvation" - a very shallow statement that over years of misunderstanding has acquired much fanfare.
Paul's own dichotomy in dealing with his Hebrew companions and his gentiles companions as regards the enforcement of judaic law reinforced this approach.
Paul himself was educated in Greek philosophy. When attempting to relate to the gentile populace it was considered norm to relate to the target audience - much like how evangelists today "gear" their sermons to appeal to the understanding and mindset of the target audience.
This again is deonstrated in several misconceptions that have arisen in Christianity throughout the ages, and particularly after Athenagoras' apologeticism towards the roman Emperor.
The idea of a son of God is a direct derivative of Greek exoteric philosophy's Perseus, Hercules, and the like. Certainly, how else would Paul explain emaculate conception, except to draw an analogy with that which teh target audience believed. In the Bible god is referred to as the father of mankind, and even in the translation (ironically the oldest surving Bible is the 6th century greek version - aramaic is all but lost), Christ's call of Father when referring to the One is not any indicator of a Father-son relationship.
Given this premiss, one then needs to read into Greek philospphy as propounded by Aristotle and Plato. The triad is the foundation of Greek principles with the number 3 being considered holy.
The trinity itself was first instituted by Athenagoras, a greek philosohphy in his dialog with the Roman Emperor. This was the first instance where the idea of 3 as one -fatehr, son and holy ghost are ever mentioned. This is a direct structural derivative of the Greek philosophical concept of the Triad.

But the metamorphosis did not even stop there. A subsequent change from Aramiac to Greek to Latin and then English has itself resulted in a great loss of meaning in the book.  a good example is the English - she lay at his feet the full night; in Hebrew it implies spending the night in coitus.

Finally we come to Theodonius' violent imposition of Christianity in Europe which stamped out non-Christian belief taliban-style. Subsequently we have the Christian crusades, and edicts throughout Europe, slavery, inquisitions, colonialism, genocide of native peoples in hostile land-grabs in Australia and America.

So when we speak of Christinaity today, and people as Christians try to have a "Righteous and Religious debate" on the Abrahamic religion, it would be better to first understand the history behind modern exoteric religions, and sit back to evaluate one's beliefs before trying to broadcast righteousness and religiosity without even knowing the context of their religions.
Succinctly put, righteous and religious derive from "righteousness" and "religion" in their true forms, and not from what the local Preacher or Televangelist tells you they are.
After all, a hindu who worships stones today, would "believe" it is the right and religious thing to do. But if the Hindu looks at his oldest religious texts, one gets a completely monotheistic view. So then, what is right and what is religious?

To be sure, many modern versions of Christianity are nothing like the first century practice, with the exception of the literalist ones which are (a) principle target of mine.

To be honest, I did not choose the title of this thread, and it is not representative of why I continuously fight against the idea of religion. I am not concerned with biblically derived words such as righteousness, and such as word is meaningless unless it has been defined. The various religious denominations provide their own definitions, none of which agree so this is not helpful. On the other hand, I can take the word "religion" as representing something even though it's definition is still not clear. In the modern context, religion is division. It is taking a stand in one pocket of society, and invokes an "us and them" mentality, where the only thing you need to do to feel superior to outsiders is dip youself in water or equivalent.

All those extraneous historical details are nice, but the essential message of religion is the same, and it involves a smug certainty that no scientist would ever try to claim about life or the universe. Even Epicurus, who existed before all the historical developments, was forced to put forth arguments about why God wold allow suffering, which the fledgling Christians ignored. The situation today is no different, except in scale because we live in the information age. I'd caution against making this sound more complicated than it really is serpicus. It's always been straightforward. The "religious" folk give credit to a deity who may not even be there (or care), and they ignore reason whenever they hear it.

A good example is that all my opponents on this thread have skated around my points. The points I raised in my first post here have not been tackled yet!! Preaching against a much faster population rise is ridiculous and I'm unquestionably right, yet the person who responded just went into a narrative about how Christians are victimised. I've mentioned all kinds of things from redundant biological features to bible atrocity, but you guys won't listen, or it goes in one ear and out the other. I pick apart other people's posts, the least you could do is the same.

A truly honest person who has ever looked at the evidence cannot possibly do anything but revise their beliefs substantially. It's plainly obvious that the bible itself is uninspired and even dangerous. The historical details do not affect this conclusion. If the modern incarnation is so watered down and traditionalised, then what is its value? Morality is a poor argument here and I've heard it before. In fact I've heard everything everyone has said so far.

I REALLY wish I could've read the entire thing up to this point, so please don't shoot me if this has already been noted, BUT...
Earlier (ie, page 2 or something), auxilio (sp?) said that nothing was impossible for God, and Dr. Lazarus said stuff about omnipotence that made sense, etc. etc.
Anyways, I'm just here to note that nothing is technically impossible, what with quantum and stuff. Since reality is based on our perceptions, it is always possible that a sudden change in our brain chemistry or eye damage will in fact render the sky red, or due to a lot of incredibly lucky not-collisions one is able to actually walk through a wall (or, conversely, and I almost hate myself for bringing this up, on water).
Okay, I'm not saying this is what I believe God is, but if a person had absolute control over their own atomic structure and was omniscient with regards to the atomic structure of everything else, would that render them omnipotent?
Of course, you'd have to assume that one is able to control their own particles, which would be rather difficult. Meh, too confusing, gonna shut up now. Just wanted to point out that nothing is impossible, and got lost on a tangent.

Hmmm... so what you are saying essentially is that this deity is a consequence of extremely improbable events (but still possible, albeit veeeeeeeeery, very unlikely)  ^-^

This kind of sounds unprovable to me... which leads us back into circular reasoning.  :crybaby:
(but good thoughts 8 of 11 :thumbsup:)

There is also the possibility that the cup in front of you jumps into the air without any reason. There's also the possibility that the cup, once back on the floor and broken, stacks itself into the original shape and all the atomic links fused again... each of them as it was before.

I have to disagree on some points here. Quantum mechanics does not declare that impossible scenarios are possible, it simply refines our poor understanding of physics that we had in the ninteenth century. If you take electron tunnelling as an example, in which a particle has to have a finite chance of penetrating its energy well in order to satisfy its wavefunction, we simply add this rule into our "bucket" of what is possible. The same goes for phenomena such as Quantum entanglement in which particles may have coupled spins over vast distances. Granted, our "bucket" of what is possible is growing in size, but it is a gross error to suddenly conclude that anything is possible.

If you're missing my point, consider that there is nothing in Quantum mechanics which violates the basic laws of logic, and in fact the tunnelling effect is not just logically sound but mathematically appropriate, and you can see this by solving Schrodinger's equation for a particle trapped in some a potential well. On the other hand, trying to make grandiose claims such as omnipotence requires violating logic so basic that it barely needs describing. It's a simple paradox, and the omnipotence idea is forced to collapse like melting ice. Put simply, an omnipotent God would be capable of destroying his own omnipotence. It's absurd, and no scientist or philsopher will take seriously a debater (such as some earlier in the thread) who tries to claim that.

In order for anything to be possible, we would need an insane revision of basic logic that can allow for contadictory paradoxes. Even though we can expect phenomenal technological progress over the next few decades, with many revisions of our understanding, remember that the whole process which allowed for this progress has it's basis in logical reasoning. To mess with that foundation is like removing the bricks from the first floor of a building. Advances can be evolutionary or revolutionary, but even revolutionary ones such as General Relativity do not violate logic, or even earlier physics for that matter. With Einstein, we all went "ooh" and "aah" and recognised it for the towering intellectual achievement that it was, but it's sobering to realise that the Newtonian mechanics it supposedly replaced is still valid as a limiting case. Newton's understanding was not wrong it was just incomplete.

As for the cup jumping up thing, yes you are right, there is a finite (but unbelieveably remote) chance that a smashed cup can reassemble itself, but I encourage you Jan to plug some numbers into Boltzmann's equation for statistical entropy and you'll find that the probabilty is so small that even the best calculators can only display it as zero. What you are talking about is not anything to do with Quantum physics, just thermodynamics. Boltzmann died a long time before the Quantum theorists started their stuff.

Understood: not everything is "possible", as of yet (we always need to find more data and determine what hypothesis these lead to....). I went the route of over simplifying in light of time management  :sweatdrop:.... woops, I just simplified it again (but I have to run anyway.)

I need something I can debate, darn it! (not something that I agree with, aaargh!)  :lol:

Sorry Dom, I'll try to say something that'll provoke you next time  :innocent:.

I think people should exercise caution as far as the Quantum stuff is concerned. As an example of why, you can find legitimate websites about say, Quantum chemistry, but the Google Ads bring up all sorts of garbage about "Quantum healing" or "Using your Quantum mind". It seems that con-artists and manipulators have jumped on the Quantum bandwagon, whilst simultaneously demonstrating that they do not understand what the word Quantum means. There will always be people who fall for this stuff.

Actually, just to be sure, the other day I tried to bend a spoon with my mind. When I failed, I attempted to refocus my "Quantum energy", and yet I still failed. I tried to tell myself, "There is no spoon", but I failed thrice more. So I went back to my room and studied for my Quantum chemistry exam. Worked wonders.

Seems the universe works in a rational way after all, even if it sometimes goes against our intuition.